Method for evaluating performance of clinical pharmacists.
A performance-evaluation process that satisfies Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations criteria and state policies is described. A three-part, criteria-based, weighted performance-evaluation tool specific for clinical pharmacists was designed for use in two institutions affiliated with the University of Washington. The three parts are self-appraisal and goal setting, peer evaluation, and supervisory evaluation. Objective criteria within each section were weighted to reflect the relative importance of that characteristic to the job that the clinical pharmacist performs. The performance score for each criterion is multiplied by the weighted value to produce an outcome score. The peer evaluation and self-appraisal/goal-setting parts of the evaluation are completed before the formal performance-evaluation interview. The supervisory evaluation is completed during the interview. For this evaluation, supervisors use both the standard university employee performance evaluation form and a set of specific criteria applicable to the clinical pharmacists in these institutions. The first performance evaluations done under this new system were conducted in May 1989. Pharmacists believed that the new system was more objective and allowed more interchange between the manager and the pharmacist. The peer-evaluation part of the system was seen as extremely constructive. This three-part, criteria-based system for evaluation of the job performance of clinical pharmacists could easily be adopted by other pharmacy departments.
Schumock
G T
GT
College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois, Chicago.
Leister
K A
KA
Edwards
D
D
Wareham
P S
PS
Burkhart
V D
VD
D004650:Employee Performance Appraisal; D006040:Goals; D006745:Hospital Bed Capacity, 300 to 499; D010380:Peer Review; D010559:Personnel Management; D010595:Pharmacists; D010607:Pharmacy Service, Hospital / Q000592:standards*; D012655:Self-Evaluation Programs; D014861:Washington